Mumbai Court May 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sharad Baliram Patil Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. The first respondent the City of Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Corporation which is a Municipal Corporation established under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1949) organized a Cricket Tournament called as MahapourChashak (Mayor's Cup) in January, 2013. It is not in dispute that out of the total budget allocation of Rs.50 lacs for sports activities for the entire financial year, a sum of Rs.24,90,000/- has been spent by the Municipal Corporation on the said Cricket Tournament. 2. The petitioner who is a resident of Bhiwandi town has filed this petition in this Court complaining about the illegalities in holding the said Tournament. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out several illegalities and irregularities in the matter of holding the said Cricket Tournament. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner has relied upon the affida...
Madhu Sonu Naik Vs. Smt. Ana Rosa Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-03-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Advocate Mr. Kakodkar for the appellant and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.4. None present for the other respondents, though served. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to judgment and decree dated 15/11/2003 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.30/2001 by which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14/12/2000 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.107/1985/C, has been dismissed. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff in the above suit which was initially filed seeking injunction against the defendants from interfering with the right of way through the property of respondent no.1 Thereafter, relief was also claimed against respondent no.4. Subsequently, the plaint was amended by adding additional paragraph 41(A) in which the plaintiff claims right to purchase three metres wide access way through the property of defendant no.1...
Smt. Jijabai Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.B. Varale, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner-convict questions the order passed by the State Government dated 30.10.2012. The short point for our consideration is whether the category of the petitioner-convict as stated in the order dated 30.10.2012 is in conformity with the judicial pronouncement of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3701/2012 (Usha Munna Upadhyay vs. The State of Maharashtra) rendered on 15.03.2013. The request for premature release of the petitioner-convict was considered and the petitioner-convict was placed in category as categorized in the Government Guidelines issued in that behalf on 15.03.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the categorization as fixed by the authorities is clearly in breach of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3701/2012. 3. T...
M/S. Sunil Mantri Realty Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2013
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 27th August 2011, passed by the learned Learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXX, Mumbai, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), for the A.Y. 2009-10. M/s. Sunil Mantri Realty Ltd. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of construction of residential and commercial units at various places in the country. On 9th July 2008, a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out in Mantri Group of cases including that of the assessee. During the course of search and seizure action, cash worth Rs. 46,09,800, was found from the premises of the assessee, out of which an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs was seized. The Assessing Officer, after considering the statement on oath recorded under section 132(4) of Mr. Sunil Mantri, came to the conclusion that the cash sum of Rs. ...
Pradeep Tulsidharan Pillai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2013
P.C. The Applicant is arraigned as an accused in CR No.178/2011 alleging offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 r/w 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered with Bhoiwada Police Station, Dadar. 2. The Applicant was arrested on 03.07.2012 and since then he is in custody. 3. The Complainant's case is that some unknown persons forged her signature and prepared duplicate stamps and letterhead of the Institute and withdrew the amount of Rs.8,86,360/- from her Bank account at Saraswat Bank. That is how the complaint is lodged. 4. Upon inquiries, it was revealed that the Applicant adopted modus-operandi of accessing the unknown bank accounts and dealing with them by either seeking fresh cheque books and thereafter, issuing the cheques and receiving the amounts. 5. The investigations are complete and the charge sheet is filed. The real apprehension is that the Applicant will adopt same modus-operandi as there are eight cases registered against him alleging...
Vidyadhar Sitaram Mokal and Others Vs. Barkatullah Allhasan Shaikh and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2013
Oral Judgment: Admit. By consent of parties appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This is a classic case showing how the glaring fraudulent tactics played by the Land Mafias in and around Mumbai and how the poor agriculturists are made to prey to the allurement of the members of such Mafias. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The defendant Nos.1 and 2 originally entered into an agreement for development with the present appellants who are the owners of the suit property with regard to an area of 46,710 sq.meters for an amount of Rs.6,75,00,000/-. The said agreement was entered into between the appellants and defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.14 and 15 herein) on 13th February 2008. Undisputedly, this was a registered agreement. At the time of agreement, only an amount of Rs.25 lakh came to be paid to the plaintiffs. As per the agreement, there was a schedule of payment mentioned in paragraph-2 of the said development agreement. The first of such install...
Lucky Steven Newek Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2013
P.C. The NDPS case in which the Applicant has been arrested is numbered as NDPS RA No.191/2012. The Applicant applied for bail. 2. It is alleged that on 16.12.2012, the Anti Narcotic Cell received information that three Nigerian nationals were expected to come carrying cocaine near Siddhivinayak Hotel, P.D'Mello road, Mumbai. The trap was arranged and the cocaine was seized from the Applicant and two other Nigerian nationals. The Applicant applied for bail earlier and later on, withdrew that application. In the second application for bail, he stated that the seizure of 20 grams of contraband is non commercial quantity, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) are not applicable to the case. The prosecution contested this application for bail, but prima facie conceded that the cocaine weighing 20 grams each was seized and samples were collected. The Applicant has been arrested on 16.12.2012. 3. The learned Tria...
Dr. Gitanjali Narendra Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-02-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The Sonography machine of the petitioner is sealed on 01/12/2011. 3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (For short, 'PCPNDT Act') read with Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules of 1996 have not been followed. According to the learned counsel, only on the ground that Form 'F' is not properly filled in, the sonography machine has been sealed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had given reply to the show cause notice, but the same is not considered. According to the learned counsel, show cause notice was given subsequent to the act of sealing the sonography machine. 4. Mr. Pulkundwar, the learned A.G.P. for the State supports the action. According to the learned A.G.P., there were...
Purushottam and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-02-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel R.R. Vyas for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J.B. Jaiswal for respondent No.1. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners are accused in Regular Criminal Case No.237/2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura. They are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence punishable under Section 326 is not a compoundable. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were injured in the alleged incident. Respondent No.2 Sau. Sangita Nikhade, who is wife of respondent No.3, was the complainant. 4. The petitioners and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are present before the Court. It is stated by them that they have resolved the issue amicably out of the Court. It is stated by respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 that they do not want to proceed further against the petitioners as their rel...
Pramila Pralhad Gole and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-02-2013
P.C. Heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. Learned counsel Shri Sirpurkar, submits that the case of the applicants No.1 and 2 is different from the case of applicant No.3. It is submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application of the applicant No.3 and may be given liberty to file afresh. It is apprehended by him that joint hearing of this application may cause prejudice to the applicants No.1 and 2. He, therefore, wants to file separate application for applicant No.3. 3. Prayer of applicant no.3 for grant of bail is disposed of as not pressed. Liberty is given to file fresh application on behalf of applicant No.3. 4. As far as applicants No.1 and 2 are concerned, they were members of alleged unlawful assembly. It appears that there is a dispute between two families of Goles since long and because of that dispute the incident in question had occurred. It appears that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »